Liberal Republican Foreshadows Likely Dem Strategy in 2006
A column penned by former Lt. Governor and liberal Republican Bill Ratliff in the Austin American Statesman this morning says we need more religion in Texas politics….in the form of liberal policy positions. Says Lt. Gov. Ratliff,
For instance, when considering how many poor children in Texas will be removed from the Children’s Health Insurance Program in order to hold down costs to the state, they choose not to consider Christ’s admonishment to "suffer the little children to come unto me."
So Jesus would have advocated for increased government social spending? I do not recall Him petitioning Pontius Pilot for that when He had the chance. Lt. Gov. Ratliff continues,
When considering how much to reduce funding for indigent health care, Medicaid for nursing homes, child abuse protective services or special education for handicapped children, there seems to be little recognition of Christ’s teaching that, "in as much as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me also."
Lt. Gov. Ratliff should read the text more closely. In the context of this statement (Matthew 24 and 25), Jesus was speaking to His disciples, not government officials.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
22 Responses to “What Would Ratliff Do?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Everything he says makes sense to me. You quote the bible when it bolsters your positions, but discount it when it doesn’t. I’m confused.
Dear Gadboy,
Thanks for reading LST.
It’s not that I’m discounting scripture. My contention is that Lt. Gov. Ratliff is quoting scripture out of context. The click “More…” for the extended version, where I talk more about the specific passages cited.
#1 - the problem is that Ratliff is misusing scripture to bolster government programs. I don’t believe for a second that Jesus would command us to pay money to a bloated, even somewhat corrupt, government to supply socialized insurance to anybody. And if he is using “suffer the little children to come unto me” as the justification, then he is really off base. Jesus absolutely commanded believers to help the poor, but Ratliff is waaaaaay off base translating that into increasing government handouts.
I don’t recall anything in the New Testament which says that parents who do the right thing and scrape up the money for their own children’s health insurance should then be taxed to pay for such health insurance for parents who won’t spend a dime on health insurance for their own kids.
But I do recall that we are living in a state which requires citizens, under threat of legal penalties, to buy insurance for their cars, which requirement of course Mr. Ratliff supported.
Now imagine that, for years Ratliff was in a powerful legislative position and might have at least put through a law requiring that parents do the same thing for their children, under threat of legal penalties, which he time and again voted to require them to do for their cars!
Suffer the little SUV’s …
The big issue here is the difference between INDIVIDUALS and GOVERNMENT. Jesus gave us lots of instructions as individuals, including taking care of the poor, etc. The problem with liberals is that they like to take those instructions to individuals and apply them to government, whereas the instructions for governments are very different. For example, as Christian individuals, we should forgive and “turn the other cheek.” But governments are responsible for punishing evil doers (see Romans 13). In that regard, governments are God’s representatives, so while vengeance belongs to God, He allows governments to execute it.
I have been commanded by the Lord to provide for those who are less fortunate and cannot provide for themselves. Ok I will, but I wish to do it myself, not via the government, which brings up the whole separation of church and state thing. The government should get out of the business of charity and let individuals decide how and where their charity dollar goes. The government sure does seem to be led by religious people. Who don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus and are trying to salve their own conscience. These elected representatives are providing sinful services to poor folk that are contrary to what Jesus said and making me pay for it in the form of taxes which makes me take an unwilling part in that SIN. Jesus would have walked into the Capitol building and revealed our Representatives for the white washed cemeteries, full of dead men’s bones and corrupted flesh that they are.
Respectfully submitted,
Rev. Viktor Skaggs
Boron Church of Coffee
Related article from Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46585
I must say that I agree whole-heartedly.
While I am a Christian, I am inclined to vote out of office ANY politician who chooses to lecture me about what scripture says to try to force me to support his position. His religion and MY religion ought to have NO part in what we decide to do as a government. What we decide to do as individuals ought to be guided by whatever beliefs we hold dear, but government has a pretty narrow scope, and nowhere in the Texas Constitution does it say “…do whatever jesus would do…”. We should be narrowing the scope of government instead of broadening it, and every single entitlement program, be it digital tv tax credits, free wireless internet, or free healthcare insurance for kids, just increases the entitlement mentality, decreases the role of personal responsibility, and broadens the scope of what government is “supposed” to provide for in people’s minds.
We just got a tremendous lesson (via Katrina) in what happens when a population conditioned to look to government to fulfill every need suddenly finds that government isn’t there for them when they need them. We should LEARN from that lesson, and learn WELL!
I have been into low income housing projects doing lead based paint studies for the government. What I found there at times was deplorable (not meant to say EVERY home was like this, but enough were). A townhome would have a very nice car parked out front, a really nice TV and stereo system in the living room, solid wood furniture in the master bedroom with silk sheets on the bed, and the kids bedrooms would have…a bare mattress on the floor with clothes stuffed into a pillowcase for a pillow and a torn blanket to sleep under, with no other furniture in the room, no pictures on the wall, and no curtains on the windows. I know damn well that if those parents could afford a big-screen tv (bigger than mine), better stereo equipment than I have, a nicer car than I have, AND they were receiving “low-income” housing assistance, that they could afford to buy their kid a bed, curtains, sheets, and some bedroom furniture. I also know damn well that if they weren’t willing to buy their kid sheets, that they were not paying for health insurance for him or her either. But that kid is just another statistic of “children without health insurance” used to try to establish a case for socialized medicine. So tell me why I should pay my hard earned tax dollars for that child’s health insurance (through a grossly inefficient government program) when his own parents won’t even buy him sheets for his bed and choose instead to buy things for themselves that even I can’t afford for MYSELF?
I really like the idea of requiring parents to pay for insurance for their kids by law. That way, maybe when parents like the ones whose houses I went through fail to provide for their children and buy expensive things for themselves instead, maybe the state can take the kids away and give them to parents who give a crap about taking care of the kids.
Speaking of Romans 13, how do you parse verses 6 and 7?
or even Matthew 22:17-21:
Does it not seem that Jesus and Paul were fairly pro-tax?
Max, they were pro-law. You’re trying to characterize conservatives as un-Christian because we don’t like high taxes.
The texts you cited don’t talk about the level of the tax at all. They just say, “do what you’re supposed to do.” If the tax is high, pay the high tax. If it’s low, pay the low tax. But obey the law.
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22 isn’t pro-high-tax. It’s pro-law and order.
Say, what is with you Libs? Yesterday we were being told that church and state must never intermingle, and today we see the words of Jesus being used to justify your welfare programs. Nothing inconsistent about that, is there? Furthermore, Ratliff, and those who agree with him, are nothing more than modern day Pharisees, loudly proclaiming their compassion and self-righteousness before the crowd; but demanding other people’s money to support their charitable notions. 2 Corinthians, vs 7:”Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” #1 & # #9, did you get that part about “compulsion”? “Charity” via taxation is not charity. Both of you, give of your own substance, and do not coerce mine.
Typical liberal way to do things. Make themselves feel better using someone elses money.
#11 publius,
I know what I wrote was long and don’t blame you if you didn’t read it, but if you didn’t, don’t lump me in with #1 and #9 who are clearly FOR forcing one person to pay for another’s insurance. WHERE in ANY of it do you see me arguing FOR compelling anybody to give anything to anybody else? I specifically argued against it, and stated that I believe each parent should pay for their own child’s medical insurance.
Two things:
1) The King James Version of the Bible is by far the most eloquent, poetic version of the Bible. All others pale in comparison. IMHO
I say this based on the sample of Matthew 24 and 25 linked above and other versions I’ve read.
2) I believe that Jesus had a much greater issue on his hands than tax policy or money. Those are the concerns of man. He had a bigger fish to fry.
#12) Squawk:
I’m not much on chat room lingo, but was #12 trolling or flaming? Seems I’ve seen that accusation, or somethng similar, fly in the past.
Willie
#15
That was an invitation to comment.
:~)
Now if you had replied to my post:
Typical right wing conservative reaction to anything positive that democrats may suggest to improve life for those less fortunate.
I would have to ban you to the RNC comments section at moveon.ogre. Just kiddin with ya.
Actually I owe ya an apology. I called ya down once and when I went back and looked at what you had said you were commenting on the story or the comment of someone else. I was wrong. I’ll do better.
#9 and #10:
I am totally for following the biblical directive to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. But, I hold that the biblical worldview does not require we render the care for the needy to Caesar. If someone has gotten themselves (by cruel fate and/or bad decisions) to a point where they cannot support themselves, the family, community, and church should be the first points of contact to restore and minister to the whole person.
In addition to their usual ineffieciency and perverse disincentives, I dislike the way most government programs treat the recipient like a number and not a human being, made in the image of God.
Squawk:
It’s all good. I was just messing with ya.
Here’s a quick question from previous postings. Do the supporters of a literal, ver batum approach to the Bible truly believe that our government (or any government for that matter) is sanctioned by God? The verses quoted earlier seemed to suggest that we owe allegiance to our government because they are God’s representatives on Earth, given the right to punish by God Himself? Wasn’t this called Divine Right and didn’t we do away with that concept a couple of centuries ago? I’m confused, someone please help me to understand this belief.
#13, Bill F: I did read your post and found it quite interesting. Your second comment, however, has me confused. I have re-read what I said and see no indication I mentioned you in any way, instead only gadboy and maxkelly. If I offended you I apologize, but I would like for you to show me where I did so.
#20 LOL…I better get my eyes checked! I could swear that the first time I looked at #11 that you refenced #1, #8, and #9. My apologies for not looking at it twice before getting my hackles up.
Quite alright. No apology necessary as we all make mistakes.